I prefer 180 gr. for warmer climate. But for colder climate, I prefer the lighter 155-165 gr. since penetration is an important factor against an assailinat wearing a jacket or coat.

July 25th, 2012, 02:08 AM

livewire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Storm

I prefer 180 gr. for warmer climate. But for colder climate, I prefer the lighter 155-165 gr. since penetration is an important factor against an assailinat wearing a jacket or coat.

Isn't that backwards? i.e., isn't heavier = deeper?

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

July 25th, 2012, 04:21 AM

DefConGun

I've never shot anything but 180gr. I'll have to get a box of 165gr. just to see how it compares and see if I notice that its snappier.

From my very limited understanding/knowledge of the matter, there's alot of anecdotal evidence from the street that suggests that the 165gr. may be the superior round. In spite of this, I am (for the moment) in the "use the heaviest bullet" camp. So by default, I use the 180 gr. so that I'll at least be consistent in my ideology. Most defensive encounters happen within 7 yards. I think as a general rule, I'm not going to have to worry about my heavier bullet loosing alot of speed over distance. I think the 180gr. will do just fine in the 7 yard range. Even if the 165gr. has better ballistics than the 180gr. on paper, I'm really doubting that the difference is going to be so great that my life will be spared because I used the 165 in one encounter and/or lost because I used the 180gr. in another encounter.

To be honest, from what I remember, it seems like I ran into some conflicting information when I looked into this matter. Some say the 165 is better while others say, 180 is superior. If I'm not mistaken, Massad Ayoob recommended one in one article and the other in another article. With this in mind, I wouldn't go to the mat with anyone about the issue because I'm not sure if the experts even know, etc.

July 25th, 2012, 01:06 PM

livewire

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefConGun

I've never shot anything but 180gr. I'll have to get a box of 165gr. just to see how it compares and see if I notice that its snappier.

From my very limited understanding/knowledge of the matter, there's alot of anecdotal evidence from the street that suggests that the 165gr. may be the superior round. In spite of this, I am (for the moment) in the "use the heaviest bullet" camp. So by default, I use the 180 gr. so that I'll at least be consistent in my ideology. Most defensive encounters happen within 7 yards. I think as a general rule, I'm not going to have to worry about my heavier bullet loosing alot of speed over distance. I think the 180gr. will do just fine in the 7 yard range. Even if the 165gr. has better ballistics than the 180gr. on paper, I'm really doubting that the difference is going to be so great that my life will be spared because I used the 165 in one encounter and/or lost because I used the 180gr. in another encounter.

To be honest, from what I remember, it seems like I ran into some conflicting information when I looked into this matter. Some say the 165 is better while others say, 180 is superior. If I'm not mistaken, Massad Ayoob recommended one in one article and the other in another article. With this in mind, I wouldn't go to the mat with anyone about the issue because I'm not sure if the experts even know, etc.

The difference in .40 as compared to other rounds is that the 180 starts out at the muzzle with less energy than the 165 does. This has a lot to do with the fact that the 180gr 10mm "FBI-Lite" loading was crammed into the smaller case. You have basically two camps in the .40 debate. There's the technically accurate but irrelevant "the 180 is what the .40 was designed for" camp; then there's the "the 165 is a better performing round for the platform" camp (which you may have noticed has my tent in the middle).

The .40 180gr loading will always suffer from the fact that it was built on a downloaded round. The 165 was purpose-built for the .40, and naturally performs better. If you want to compare to other platforms, you should compare the .40 in 135,155, and 165 loadings to the (for example) 9mm in 110, 125, and 147gr.

July 25th, 2012, 01:12 PM

oldrwizr

Finally, a relevant post seeking information we can use! Was getting pretty tired of the gun nut vs. gun hater crap (not just here, mind you). OK, so down to business. I plink with 165 gr Federal American Eagle because I do better with it (might be less recoil, not sure) and use Hornady CD for SD. Well, I say "use" but hopefully I'll never have to. It's also 165 gr since that's what I'm used to.

July 26th, 2012, 01:48 AM

DefConGun

Quote:

Originally Posted by livewire9880

The difference in .40 as compared to other rounds is that the 180 starts out at the muzzle with less energy than the 165 does. This has a lot to do with the fact that the 180gr 10mm "FBI-Lite" loading was crammed into the smaller case. You have basically two camps in the .40 debate. There's the technically accurate but irrelevant "the 180 is what the .40 was designed for" camp; then there's the "the 165 is a better performing round for the platform" camp (which you may have noticed has my tent in the middle).

The .40 180gr loading will always suffer from the fact that it was built on a downloaded round. The 165 was purpose-built for the .40, and naturally performs better. If you want to compare to other platforms, you should compare the .40 in 135,155, and 165 loadings to the (for example) 9mm in 110, 125, and 147gr.

I'm still learning about this so thanks for the background info. I'll have to pick up some 165 to see how I like it. I'd really like to find a pig farmer that will give me one of his pigs after it has expired. I think it will be interesting to do a side by side comparison using real flesh and bone. I understand your concern about the 180 coming out of the muzzle at a slower rate but wouldn't this be true with any caliber of varying weights? Wouldn't a 9mm in 147 come out of the muzzle at a slower velocity than a 110? Somewhere down the road, mass can make up for velocity, or a lack thereof, etc. At least this is the argument I usually see whenever such matters are discussed. Typically these things normally break down into a velocity vs. mass debate. The two camps go to battle over pros and cons when maybe they should be thinking in different terms. Ultimately, I'm more concerned about levels of penetration and expansion than I am about velocity and mass. I also think that application may determine the better weight you should be carrying. Doesn't one, for example, do better in cold weather than hot weather? I'm thinking I read something about that somewhere at one time but I'd have to look it up. When I talk about weather, I'm not talking about the clothing a bullet has to penetrate, I'm referring to how a bullet travels in air with different densities.

I believe you can find anecdotal evidence that will give credit to both 165 & 180 and perhaps there is more evidence lending credence to the 165 because more officers carry it than the 180. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

Best of hope to you in your search and by all means please do share if you run across something you find interesting and I'll try to do the same.

Take care,
DCG

July 26th, 2012, 01:52 AM

livewire

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefConGun

I understand your concern about the 180 coming out of the muzzle at a slower rate but wouldn't this be true with any caliber of varying weights?

It's not velocity, it's energy that's in question. The 180gr has less energy at the muzzle, but that's the exception, not the rule. The heavier bullets retain more energy, but that's moot if it starts out with less energy than another configuration.

Since SD ammo is expensive I shoot Federal 165gr or 180gr target ammo. But I shot 100 rounds of the Gold Dot rounds to be sure it cycled fine in my pistol.

July 26th, 2012, 07:54 PM

DefConGun

Quote:

Originally Posted by livewire9880

It's not velocity, it's energy that's in question. The 180gr has less energy at the muzzle, but that's the exception, not the rule. The heavier bullets retain more energy, but that's moot if it starts out with less energy than another configuration.

Okay, that's the part that confused me. Velocity is a form of energy so from what you're saying, it sounds like your talking about force; something like torque; i.e., ft/lbs. Right? Now I see where you're coming from. That is problematic.

July 27th, 2012, 12:05 AM

yz9890

Quote:

Originally Posted by livewire9880

I shoot 165gr Gold Dot.

Normally one picks the heavies bullet in a caliber because the heavier bullet retains more energy. The problem in the .40S&W is that the 180 starts with less energy at the muzzle than the 165gr has at 100 meters. The 180gr .40 was a shortened case version of the "FBI Light" 10mm load. I studied the energy numbers for a while before I selected the 165, though I had already decided on Gold Dot at that point.

I practice with whatever Federal or Speer FMJ is cheapest at the time

here's an example of this with Fed HST.http://le.atk.com/general/federalpro...cticalhst.aspx
(click the boxes to compare the different loads)
I carry the 165 Gold Dot/Fed HST/Win Ranger. I don't think it makes much difference but when given the choice, I pick the 165's. I practice with whatever FMJ's are cheapest as well.

July 27th, 2012, 12:17 AM

blitzburgh

My carries are both chambered in .357sig, so my PX4 Storm subcompact .40 doesn't really get the attention it deserves. However, all I've ever put through it was 180 gr. After reading this, I'll have to pick up some different loads to give them a chance. The 180gr works well for me far as initial and follow up shots but I'm a fair man.. Looks like I'll be going to Wally World in the morning since my interest has been peeked.

July 27th, 2012, 09:49 AM

darkstar11

Federal HST 180 grain for carry and Federal 180 grain FMJ for practice. Those are the loads that my SA XD40 liked the best.